PURPOSE: Since 1980 numerous variations of the Mitrofanoff principle have been described. We report on 22 children in whom a ureteral Mitrofanoff channel was created. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1986 and 1995 a ureteral Mitrofanoff channel was constructed as a catheterizable conduit in 22 children 2 to 15 years old (average age 6.5) with various abnormalities of the lower urinary tract, mainly exstrophy and neurogenic bladder. Indications included unavailability or unsuitability of the appendix, preference for appendix as a catheterizable colonic stoma for antegrade washouts or concomitant removal of a nonfunctioning kidney, leaving the ureter available for use. Surgical technique was based on the principles of appendicovesicostomy and in 9 cases the ureteral Mitrofanoff channel was reimplanted. RESULTS: Followup ranged from 1 to 72 months (average 30.5). Complications included stenosis of the conduit that caused difficult catheterization in 3 patients, necessitating dilation or minor revision in 2 and complete replacement by appendix in 1. Urinary leakage from the Mitrofanoff channel in 5 patients was treated with polydimethylsiloxane injection or oxybutinin. In 1 patient the channel was reimplanted, since the catheter struck the bladder neck during catheterization and caused severe pain. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the ureteral Mitrofanoff channel seem somewhat less satisfactory than those of appendicovesicostomy but they remain acceptable and even comparable, strongly supporting its use in certain circumstances.
PURPOSE: Since 1980 numerous variations of the Mitrofanoff principle have been described. We report on 22 children in whom a ureteral Mitrofanoff channel was created. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1986 and 1995 a ureteral Mitrofanoff channel was constructed as a catheterizable conduit in 22 children 2 to 15 years old (average age 6.5) with various abnormalities of the lower urinary tract, mainly exstrophy and neurogenic bladder. Indications included unavailability or unsuitability of the appendix, preference for appendix as a catheterizable colonic stoma for antegrade washouts or concomitant removal of a nonfunctioning kidney, leaving the ureter available for use. Surgical technique was based on the principles of appendicovesicostomy and in 9 cases the ureteral Mitrofanoff channel was reimplanted. RESULTS: Followup ranged from 1 to 72 months (average 30.5). Complications included stenosis of the conduit that caused difficult catheterization in 3 patients, necessitating dilation or minor revision in 2 and complete replacement by appendix in 1. Urinary leakage from the Mitrofanoff channel in 5 patients was treated with polydimethylsiloxane injection or oxybutinin. In 1 patient the channel was reimplanted, since the catheter struck the bladder neck during catheterization and caused severe pain. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the ureteral Mitrofanoff channel seem somewhat less satisfactory than those of appendicovesicostomy but they remain acceptable and even comparable, strongly supporting its use in certain circumstances.